|
|
Post by liftlock on Jul 17, 2023 17:21:01 GMT
Dr. Mark Skousen interviews Jeremy Siegel, Burt Malkiel, and Alex Green. The topic of this interview will be “The Most Important Lesson I’ve Learned After 50 Years 0n Wall Street: What Works and What Doesn’t.” Dr. Mark Skousen considers these two professors THE pioneers in finance: Jeremy Siegel, the Wizard of Wharton and author of the classic “Stocks for the Long Run,” and Burt Malkiel, Princeton economist and author of the classic “A Random Walk Down Wall Street.” Both have just released their latest editions. Mark interviews these two legends on the following topics: –The fear of financial crisis in America and their outlook on the future of the American economy... –The latest theories from their books... –The “best technique” to achieve financial success, and what the greatest danger to one’s portfolio is... –What works and doesn't work on Wall Street and their opinions on those in Wall Street who beat the market... –The MOST IMPORTANT LESSONS they have learned in their 50+ years on Wall Street... The run time is 1hour and 20 mins.. with lots of investment wisdom, especially for someone younger. As someone older, I found it worth my time. www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBkNqG828u0 |
|
|
|
Post by steadyeddy on Jul 17, 2023 23:06:43 GMT
liftlock, thank you for sharing the link. Great stuff! One chart that caught my attention and is worthy of staring at it and making observations is... 
|
|
|
|
Post by racqueteer on Jul 18, 2023 1:28:29 GMT
I agree, but I think the graphic can also be misleading. This is for 1973-2020. Assuming most dividends are actually being earned, I think a dividend-payer was likely to have been a solidly-performing, dependable stock. Not surprising that they'd come off well in a comparison; especially given that growthy tech would have only had a short run at the time (2008-2009 wiped out the 2000-2008 run). I don't know for sure, but I can't help wondering what a 2000-2022 chart would look like...
|
|
|
|
Post by steadyeddy on Jul 18, 2023 2:58:30 GMT
I agree, but I think the graphic can also be misleading. This is for 1973-2020. Assuming most dividends are actually being earned, I think a dividend-payer was likely to have been a solidly-performing, dependable stock. Not surprising that they'd come off well in a comparison; especially given that growthy tech would have only had a short run at the time (2008-2009 wiped out the 2000-2008 run). I don't know for sure, but I can't help wondering what a 2000-2022 chart would look like...
2 years is too short a timeframe to draw meaningful conclusions. We may have issues even with 1973-2020 but at least it is a sufficiently long time period. |
|
|
|
Post by racqueteer on Jul 18, 2023 11:20:24 GMT
I agree, but I think the graphic can also be misleading. This is for 1973-2020. Assuming most dividends are actually being earned, I think a dividend-payer was likely to have been a solidly-performing, dependable stock. Not surprising that they'd come off well in a comparison; especially given that growthy tech would have only had a short run at the time (2008-2009 wiped out the 2000-2008 run). I don't know for sure, but I can't help wondering what a 2000-2022 chart would look like...
2 years is too short a timeframe to draw meaningful conclusions. We may have issues even with 1973-2020 but at least it is a sufficiently long time period. True. I'm just conscious of the ways that data can be misleading if one ignores some of the less obvious interpretations. That's why the same data can sometimes be made to produce contradictory conclusions. The most obvious implication isn't automatically correct; sometimes other confounding variables exist. Too, I get nervous when a conclusion seems obvious; it's too easy to stop looking for alternative possibilities. Open mind and all that... |
|
|
|
Post by steadyeddy on Jul 18, 2023 11:33:27 GMT
2 years is too short a timeframe to draw meaningful conclusions. We may have issues even with 1973-2020 but at least it is a sufficiently long time period. True. I'm just conscious of the ways that data can be misleading if one ignores some of the less obvious interpretations. That's why the same data can sometimes be made to produce contradictory conclusions. The most obvious implication isn't automatically correct; sometimes other confounding variables exist. Too, I get nervous when a conclusion seems obvious; it's too easy to stop looking for alternative possibilities. Open mind and all that... Agree 100%. The start date and end date along with certain parameters can likely portray a story the author wants to tell. |
|
|
|
Post by steelpony10 on Jul 18, 2023 12:49:18 GMT
Everyone on here should know predicting the future by projecting the past is sort of a futile exercise since unknowns play into that projection.
How about as one ages it’s recommended one shift towards more sure income like dividends or yield giving up a chance at bigger capital gains as the price for that shift? The baby boomers are still retiring at 10k? per day and may be shifting that way. Before that were about 40+ mil? Depression era individuals like my parents and inlaws leery of markets but utility stocks and CD’s were golden. Maybe that chart reflects that aging mindset.
I still think ones’s focus should be on a variety of income types, equities, income and alternatives, to better insure you get something from somewhere in as many future markets as possible especially as one ages. I think that chart reflects that thinking based on common sense and what’s recommended by investing professionals.
|
|
|
|
Post by liftlock on Jul 18, 2023 14:33:29 GMT
I agree, but I think the graphic can also be misleading. This is for 1973-2020. Assuming most dividends are actually being earned, I think a dividend-payer was likely to have been a solidly-performing, dependable stock. Not surprising that they'd come off well in a comparison; especially given that growthy tech would have only had a short run at the time (2008-2009 wiped out the 2000-2008 run). I don't know for sure, but I can't help wondering what a 2000-2022 chart would look like...
Looking at the slope of the lines, it appears to me the same trend continues or even accelerates between 2000 and 2020. I can't image adding 2021-2022 would make much of a difference in the overall trends. Beyond that, I suspect that growth stocks paying rising dividends, even if modest amounts, are included in the top performing category. |
|
|
|
Post by racqueteer on Jul 18, 2023 14:47:18 GMT
Maybe that chart reflects that aging mindset. An excellent observation! It’s easy to overlook a change in the sample population over longer periods of time. Maybe the population became younger or older. Richer or poorer. More or less likely to marry and have children. All of those factors might be missed. Evaluating raw data can be difficult. |
|
|
|
Post by racqueteer on Jul 18, 2023 14:58:06 GMT
I agree, but I think the graphic can also be misleading. This is for 1973-2020. Assuming most dividends are actually being earned, I think a dividend-payer was likely to have been a solidly-performing, dependable stock. Not surprising that they'd come off well in a comparison; especially given that growthy tech would have only had a short run at the time (2008-2009 wiped out the 2000-2008 run). I don't know for sure, but I can't help wondering what a 2000-2022 chart would look like...
Looking at the slope of the lines, it appears to me the same trend continues or even accelerates between 2000 and 2020. I can't image adding 2021-2022 would make much of a difference in the overall trends. Beyond that, I suspect that growth stocks paying rising dividends, even if modest amounts, are included in the top performing category. The problem there is twofold: Firstly, I wasn’t suggesting ADDING the two additional years; they would be ‘washed out’ by the previous 47 years. Also the effect is compounding, which makes casual observation problematic. You’re increasing an increase as well as seeing the base effect. . |
|
|
|
Post by chang on Jul 18, 2023 15:21:59 GMT
I prefer to see rolling return charts instead of total return charts. The latter are highly sensitive to starting and ending points, and long periods (over ten years) can wash out important trends. Of course it’s meaningful and impressive, but TR charts like these have their limitations.
|
|
|
|
Post by steadyeddy on Jul 18, 2023 15:31:56 GMT
Everyone on here should know predicting the future by projecting the past is sort of a futile exercise since unknowns play into that projection. How about as one ages it’s recommended one shift towards more sure income like dividends or yield giving up a chance at bigger capital gains as the price for that shift? The baby boomers are still retiring at 10k? per day and may be shifting that way. Before that were about 40+ mil? Depression era individuals like my parents and inlaws leery of markets but utility stocks and CD’s were golden. Maybe that chart reflects that aging mindset. I still think ones’s focus should be on a variety of income types, equities, income and alternatives, to better insure you get something from somewhere in as many future markets as possible especially as one ages. I think that chart reflects that thinking based on common sense and what’s recommended by investing professionals. , sound advice on diversification on asset types. |
|
|
|
Post by steelpony10 on Jul 18, 2023 15:33:49 GMT
racqueteer , I didn’t have any facts really at the time but I saw this during Stagflation. I thought it was mostly due to the high inflation rate averaging about 7%+. The old investors told me portfolio management became burdensome as they aged so many converted much of their savings to dividend payors mostly utilities, banks and T. Anyway for similar reasons I switched our emphasis over time like they did. Here’s some thinking on current demographic trends. Imagine the affect of spend down investors exiting markets as a growing segment of the population on equity values. www.investopedia.com/articles/pf/06/demographictrends.asp
|
|
|
|
Post by racqueteer on Jul 18, 2023 15:45:09 GMT
That’s a thought provoking article; thanks for sharing!
|
|
|
|
Post by howaya on Jul 18, 2023 17:33:50 GMT
Well, here is a counterpoint: www.fidelity.com/insights/markets-economy/baby-boomers-stocksExcerpts: "Nearly two-thirds of U.S. adults age 65 and older own equity through individual stocks, mutual funds or retirement savings accounts, according to an April survey by Gallup. That is up from roughly half of Americans in the same age cohort before the 2008 financial crisis—the only age group to see stock ownership rates rise over that period." "Among Vanguard’s personal-investor clients, individuals 65 and older have a median equity allocation of 63%, according to the asset manager’s data as of the end of January." |
|
|
|
Post by steadyeddy on Jul 18, 2023 17:54:11 GMT
Well, here is a counterpoint: www.fidelity.com/insights/markets-economy/baby-boomers-stocksExcerpts: "Nearly two-thirds of U.S. adults age 65 and older own equity through individual stocks, mutual funds or retirement savings accounts, according to an April survey by Gallup. That is up from roughly half of Americans in the same age cohort before the 2008 financial crisis—the only age group to see stock ownership rates rise over that period." "Among Vanguard’s personal-investor clients, individuals 65 and older have a median equity allocation of 63%, according to the asset manager’s data as of the end of January." will be the crowd that will run to the hills when the going gets tough... |
|
|
|
Post by steelpony10 on Jul 18, 2023 18:12:18 GMT
howaya , Of course dividend stocks and the S&P are equities. Income stocks with rising dividends and a more balanced equity index like the S&P would offer less cap gains then the remainder of the list. I suppose the income payers may continue to lead as the populations around the world continue to age. Medicine rather then $5 Mocha latte drinks and streaming networks. If an aging world with a great amount of the worlds wealth starts spending down and partying on equity cap gain growth may slow but distributions of income still should flow or may continue to raise if one holds positions in the necessities. I think growth stocks may be a young persons game because they have the time to wait.Those types were the foundation of our whole portfolio. In retirement for us it’s time to back off and live on auto transferred monthly income for simplicity. We still hold about a 30% allocation in VTI, our LTC money if needed.
|
|
|
|
Post by howaya on Jul 18, 2023 19:34:36 GMT
Oh, to be clear, I am not advocating the premise of one article over the other. I simply thought there were conflicting arguments about "What [currently] works on Wall Street" for the senior demographic and I thought it interesting enough to share.
|
|
|
|
Post by anitya on Jul 18, 2023 22:14:15 GMT
Oh, to be clear, I am not advocating the premise of one article over the other. I simply thought there were conflicting arguments about "What [currently] works on Wall Street" for the senior demographic and I thought it interesting enough to share. Hi howaya, I noticed you are a new member (judging by only 5 posts). I saw three posts from you today, one from June 26 but am not able to retrieve your 5th post. What was it? I skip over posts and threads quite often and miss a lot of posts. |
|
|
|
Post by howaya on Jul 18, 2023 23:44:01 GMT
anitya , I really cannot say what the 5th post was and I am certain it wasn't important enough to track down. I joined BB almost immediately after a certain individual received a three month suspension. When that period ends I may be compelled to end my membership and return to lurking as a guest.
|
|
|
|
Post by richardsok on Jul 19, 2023 1:30:44 GMT
anitya , I really cannot say what the 5th post was and I am certain it wasn't important enough to track down. I joined BB almost immediately after a certain individual received a three month suspension. When that period ends I may be compelled to end my membership and return to lurking as a guest. Hope you reconsider. |
|
|
|
Post by steadyeddy on Jul 19, 2023 1:44:38 GMT
anitya , I really cannot say what the 5th post was and I am certain it wasn't important enough to track down. I joined BB almost immediately after a certain individual received a three month suspension. When that period ends I may be compelled to end my membership and return to lurking as a guest. , there comes a time when you need to stand YOUR ground. No one on this forum is above decorum or decency. What you do is up to you, but please not let others decide it for you. Zero tolerance for certain behaviors. |
|
|
|
Post by mnfish on Jul 19, 2023 11:28:11 GMT
liftlock , thank you for sharing the link. Great stuff! One chart that caught my attention and is worthy of staring at it and making observations is... View Attachment It's funny the chart doesn't mention stock splits. For instance, since 1987 - 100sh of AAPL grew to 22,400 shares 100sh of ORCL grew to 21,600 shares 100sh of MSFT grew to 28,800 shares Or are splits calculated as dividends in the chart? |
|
|
|
Post by steadyeddy on Jul 19, 2023 13:16:37 GMT
liftlock , thank you for sharing the link. Great stuff! One chart that caught my attention and is worthy of staring at it and making observations is... View Attachment It's funny the chart doesn't mention stock splits. For instance, since 1987 - 100sh of AAPL grew to 22,400 shares 100sh of ORCL grew to 21,600 shares 100sh of MSFT grew to 28,800 shares Or are splits calculated as dividends in the chart? I would assume that most charting data includes the effects of stock splits. |
|
|
|
Post by racqueteer on Jul 19, 2023 13:26:21 GMT
It's funny the chart doesn't mention stock splits. For instance, since 1987 - 100sh of AAPL grew to 22,400 shares 100sh of ORCL grew to 21,600 shares 100sh of MSFT grew to 28,800 shares Or are splits calculated as dividends in the chart? I would assume that most charting data includes the effects of stock splits. I would think so as well. What it WOULD do, however, is to magnify the effect of dividends; which are issued PER SHARE rather than as a percentage of price. Again, a rather non-obvious confounding factor. You're basically bleeding off investment appreciation and adding to dividend output. Same money; just attributed differently and alters the chart significantly. |
|
bruce
Lieutenant
Posts: 56
|
Post by bruce on Jul 21, 2023 1:15:29 GMT
FYI, the quote on the chart you posted attributed to Jeremy Siegel has been altered, causing a significant difference in meaning. What Siegel has said is, "Reinvesting dividends is the critical factor giving the edge to most winning stocks in the long run.........." In addition, the chart is misleading to the casual observer. It appears to intimate that by investing in dividend-growing stocks, an investor can handily outperform the market. I can't imagine getting much blowback if I were to suggest that Ned Davis's research was paid for by Hartford Funds to be able to use the chart in its Hartford Dividend Growth and Hartford Equity Income funds' sale brochures. Hartford's HDGIX ( Div Grw fund ) finished in the top 10% of comparable funds over the past five years, top 8% over the past ten years, and finally in the top 15% over the past 15 years. Most income investors would love to finish in the top quartile over 15 years, let alone the top 15%. Would it surprise anyone if I told you SPY outperformed both Hartford's Dividend Growth and Equity Income funds over the last five, ten, and fifteen years? Charts can convey a lot of data and are useful if used properly. Some are misleading.
|
|
|
|
Post by steadyeddy on Jul 21, 2023 1:39:59 GMT
FYI, the quote on the chart you posted attributed to Jeremy Siegel has been altered, causing a significant difference in meaning. What Siegel has said is, "Reinvesting dividends is the critical factor giving the edge to most winning stocks in the long run.........." In addition, the chart is misleading to the casual observer. It appears to intimate that by investing in dividend-growing stocks, an investor can handily outperform the market. I can't imagine getting much blowback if I were to suggest that Ned Davis's research was paid for by Hartford Funds to be able to use the chart in its Hartford Dividend Growth and Hartford Equity Income funds' sale brochures. Hartford's HDGIX ( Div Grw fund ) finished in the top 10% of comparable funds over the past five years, top 8% over the past ten years, and finally in the top 15% over the past 15 years. Most income investors would love to finish in the top quartile over 15 years, let alone the top 15%. Would it surprise anyone if I told you SPY outperformed both Hartford's Dividend Growth and Equity Income funds over the last five, ten, and fifteen years? Charts can convey a lot of data and are useful if used properly. Some are misleading. , good summary. And thanks for digging in deeper and describing the nuances. Most around here apply many strategies in their portfolios - I too include some $ in the dividend investing strategy. |
|
|
|
Post by johntaylor on Aug 29, 2023 15:40:39 GMT
The demographic article echoed old debates as to whether western Europe should bring in more immigrants (Merkel) to rev up birth rates.
Even if Boomers did sell stock, surely sales would be stretched out over decades? And perhaps seniors underprepared for retirement might own more equity to seek return?
To refresh the economy, US brings in roughly 4 million immigrants per year (1 million legal, 3 million illegal) with high birth rates.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigseal on Aug 29, 2023 16:30:56 GMT
The demographic article echoed old debates as to whether western Europe should bring in more immigrants (Merkel) to rev up birth rates. Even if Boomers did sell stock, surely sales would be stretched out over decades? And perhaps seniors underprepared for retirement might own more equity to seek return? To refresh the economy, US brings in roughly 4 million immigrants per year (1 million legal, 3 million illegal) with high birth rates. Who calculated 3 million and how did they calculate it? |
|
|
|
Post by FD1000 on Sept 9, 2023 19:06:07 GMT
Good link and its content.
1) Malkiel: A simple VOO/VTI has beaten 90% of managed funds over 20 years. All should use this for their core portfolio for the important money, and the retirement. It's fine to own international + single stocks. Siegel: use 20% for explore.
2) Do higher Div have the edge? Siegel is the one who came up with this but also said that since 2006, growth killed Value by a huge margin. Buyback is another way to boost performance and lower taxes because you pay taxes on Div.
3) Malkiel: I'm not a fan o ESG, the problems are the rating.
4) Malkiel: Using option to right calls against a stock you don't want to sell and avoid capital gains is a sensible way.
5) Bonds is a decent way to invest after years of a very low rates, especially in retirement.
6) Malkiel: you can't time the markets or even the right sector, I watched CNBC and many experts said to sell Tech and buy value and the end of 2022...they were hugely wrong.
Siegel: I agree.
FD: Comments
1) The chart that shows higher Div already posted. Why the SP500 isn't in that chart?
2) If you invested in Value, you are hugely behind growth, 17 years is a long time for hope. Maybe I missed it but I didn't hear the fact that High Tech companies, the leading global force have been paying low Div but do more buyback. That's a shift that started to happened already in the early 80s.
IMO, valuation is a trap, markets can be irrational a lot longer than you think.
3) I'm more interested to know what happened in the last 40 years and less about the 70s which had a huge inflation for years.
4) Siegel is the one who shows up on CNBC every 1-2 weeks predicted sectors on CNBC. Malkiel just like Bogle stays away from weekly commentary, after all he is the guy who wrote and follows Random Walk.
|
|
